Who recorded Adam & Eve? (question from my son)

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have had (a) priest state that as well, but find no where that that is in fact a Church stance. I would be had pressed to call any thing in the Bible fictions. Jesus often spoke in parables but that is another story. Unless G D himself states that these are just stories made up to explain what happened I’m going to go with the happened as stated.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

Parables are not fiction ?​

One hates to think what people who think that, make of Psalm 114, with its fleeing sea, trees clapping their hands, & skipping hills.

Only harm can come of requiring intelligent adolescents to believe something is factual history, when its factuality can be supported only by baseless guesswork which is even less well-founded than what it seeks to prove. To do this, is vicious logic - it commits the fallacy of arguing for the reality of what is obscure (the supposedly historical status of parts of Genesis) from what is even more obscure (guesses about how God provided for knowledge of the supposed history to be made known to later generations).

It is no kindness to support people’s faith upon bad logic & bad history & bad exegesis. Far from it: it helps to build up personal faith on a rotten foundation, so that when it collapses (as all that is untrue does), it will be even more catastrophic & damaging. Are the young really going to be grateful for being taught untruths ?

 

[inthecloud]

The rabbinic tradition is that Moses received the gift or retrospective prophecy.

That is the same tradition of many of the Early Church Fathers. St Gregory of Nice comes to mind. The Genesis creation tale (chapter 1 to 11) was a prophesy of the past.
There is no way Moses could witnessed the past personaly. As all prophesies (Isaiah, Daniel, Revelations) Genesis 1 to 11 is a largely symbolic poem.
But some things are real. Creation Ex Nihilo, humans (and life) made of dust, the conflict between shepherders and farmers (Caim and Abel).
The Church have stated that there were a literal Adam and Eve, the first modern humans. (Pius XII comes to mid).
Is clear that Genesis 1 to 11 was a late additon to the Genesis history and was a monotheistic answer to sumerian and babylonian creation stories. Is the differences with that stories that carry the real message of Genesis.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Parables are not fiction ?​

One hates to think what people who think that, make of Psalm 114, with its fleeing sea, trees clapping their hands, & skipping hills.

Only harm can come of requiring intelligent adolescents to believe something is factual history, when its factuality can be supported only by baseless guesswork which is even less well-founded than what it seeks to prove. To do this, is vicious logic - it commits the fallacy of arguing for the reality of what is obscure (the supposedly historical status of parts of Genesis) from what is even more obscure (guesses about how God provided for knowledge of the supposed history to be made known to later generations).

It is no kindness to support people’s faith upon bad logic & bad history & bad exegesis. Far from it: it helps to build up personal faith on a rotten foundation, so that when it collapses (as all that is untrue does), it will be even more catastrophic & damaging. Are the young really going to be grateful for being taught untruths ?

I did not state that the Parables were not fictions, stories that Jesus used to make a point or teach a lesson. As for the Psalms , now I am be wrong but are they not song of praise and worship or was David really walking to through the valley of death. The Bible is clear on what is poetry and what is historical.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

 

[gdavis]

Is clear that Genesis 1 to 11 was a late additon to the Genesis history and was a monotheistic answer to sumerian and babylonian creation stories. Is the differences with that stories that carry the real message of Genesis.

It may be true that some cultures had a written record of creation/flood before Moses wrote Genesis, but that does not mean Moses “copied” their stories. It does confirm that there was a real event [not myth] that all cultures drew upon. Sinful man, of course, would have corrupted the events in the retelling which is why only in the Divinely inspired Book of Genesis do we have a true and uncorrupted account of what really happened. God is the only eyewitness to the creation up to day six and He communicated it - by whatever means - to Moses.

Gen. 1-11 is written in an historical style which means it is intended as history. The fact that there are many spiritual lessons and applications does not change the fact that it is an historical event. Gen. 1 -11 plainly states that God created the earth about 6,000 years ago and then destroyed it with a global flood. Even evolutionists realize that this is what the Bible teaches - and scoff at Christians who to twist the words of Scripture to compromise with evolution.

One of the many problems with “millions of years,” besides that it is not taught in Bible, is that it puts death before sin. If death occurred before sin then death is not a punishment for sin. If that is the case, then the foundation of the gospel, the need for salvation, and the trustworthiness of the entire Bible is thrown into doubt. After all, if God can’t get the fist 11 chapters right, how can we believe anything else. The ungodly have long recognized this and have focused intense attacks on Gen. 1-11. Unfortunately many Christians have joined them in attacking the reliability of Genesis.

 

[juliamajor]

It may be true that some cultures had a written record of creation/flood before Moses wrote Genesis, but that does not mean Moses “copied” their stories. It does confirm that there was a real event [not myth] that all cultures drew upon. Sinful man, of course, would have corrupted the events in the retelling which is why only in the Divinely inspired Book of Genesis do we have a true and uncorrupted account of what really happened. God is the only eyewitness to the creation up to day six and He communicated it - by whatever means - to Moses.

Gen. 1-11 is written in an historical style which means it is intended as history. The fact that there are many spiritual lessons and applications does not change the fact that it is an historical event. Gen. 1 -11 plainly states that God created the earth about 6,000 years ago and then destroyed it with a global flood. Even evolutionists realize that this is what the Bible teaches - and scoff at Christians who to twist the words of Scripture to compromise with evolution.

One of the many problems with “millions of years,” besides that it is not taught in Bible, is that it puts death before sin. If death occurred before sin then death is not a punishment for sin. If that is the case, then the foundation of the gospel, the need for salvation, and the trustworthiness of the entire Bible is thrown into doubt. After all, if God can’t get the fist 11 chapters right, how can we believe anything else. The ungodly have long recognized this and have focused intense attacks on Gen. 1-11. Unfortunately many Christians have joined them in attacking the reliability of Genesis.

6000 yrs- where does it say that? we have the Goofy Ussher timeline- is that it.?History- not a big thing with Yahwists or ancients and the way- Hebrews looked at history would be totally antithetical to ours. Herodotus - father of Modern History- history like we think about it- was much later. Genesis is a faith book - not history- and not science and we do the scripture no good by trying to make it what it isn’t.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I did not state that the Parables were not fictions, stories that Jesus used to make a point or teach a lesson. As for the Psalms , now I am be wrong but are they not song of praise and worship or was David really walking to through the valley of death. The Bible is clear on what is poetry and what is historical.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

The psalms are of several kinds - though that is clearly one of praise ​

As to your last sentence - I wish it were ! To us, it’s not - because the OT literature is not in origin intended for us at all; so literary categories that are part of Classical or European literature have been superimposed on the OT literature: with very awkward results. All the more so, because of non-literary concerns such as the notion that the OT literature is an inerrant Divine revelation.

Cutting through this jungle of misunderstandings is a part of the critical task

 

[Digitonomy]

I think it is factual, I mean…even many historians believe that Jesus was crucified, for example–by the sheer history of things. Now, the diety aspect of Jesus a historian cannot prove, but that is where our faith comes in. But, the event can be proven.

Leaving aside my faith, there is no good historical reason to think that Jesus was not crucified. However, that doesn’t mean there is any proof that that’s what happened. There simply isn’t. We have scriptural accounts that are fairly plausible, but are generally not from witnesses. And we have accounts from later historians, who were probably just reporting what had been claimed by some of the early Christians. All of this fits with what we know about the Romans in that area, that they crucified criminals. That’s not proof, just a reasonable piecing together of a story. However, the alternatives are much less plausible.

Genesis, however, is a much trickier matter.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Leaving aside my faith, there is no good historical reason to think that Jesus was not crucified. However, that doesn’t mean there is any proof that that’s what happened. There simply isn’t. We have scriptural accounts that are fairly plausible, but are generally not from witnesses. And we have accounts from later historians, who were probably just reporting what had been claimed by some of the early Christians. All of this fits with what we know about the Romans in that area, that they crucified criminals. That’s not proof, just a reasonable piecing together of a story. However, the alternatives are much less plausible.

Genesis, however, is a much trickier matter.

Note that John was a witness and Luke claims to have interviewed eyewitnesses.

 

[gdavis]

6000 yrs- where does it say that?

About 6,000 years can be traced through the genealogies, which go from Adam up. The Bible is clear that Adam was created on the sixth day. As far as I know, most Christians and non-Christians agree that that is what the Bible says if simply read straightforwardly. Many just choose not to believe it. They come up with various creative ways to stick millions of years into the first 5 days or just call it all a myth. Refusing to take Genesis as history results in many theological problems including death [and thorns] before sin and the Fall. If you disbelieve God in Genesis how can you accept anything else He says as trustworthy? In fact, you become a judge of God [which means being greater than God] instead of submitting to God’s judgment.

Just some thoughts…

 

[inthecloud]

It may be true that some cultures had a written record of creation/flood before Moses wrote Genesis, but that does not mean Moses “copied” their stories.

Genesis 1-11 is too similar to Sumerian and Babylonian creation poems not to be coincidential. Also the style and some anachronism reveal that it was written by King David’s time, not by Moses unlike the older part of the Genesis, the Patriarchs history.

Gen. 1-11 is written in an historical style which means it is intended as history. The fact that there are many spiritual lessons and applications does not change the fact that it is an historical event.

Gen 1-11 is written as a poem in Hebrew and is very different from the oral history style tradition in the Patriachal stories.

Gen. 1 -11 plainly states that God created the earth about 6,000 years ago and then destroyed it with a global flood. Even evolutionists realize that this is what the Bible teaches - and scoff at Christians who to twist the words of Scripture to compromise with evolution.

Not all evolutionists do. I do not. But even the ECFs and the Jews did argue about the level of literality of Genesis 1-11. St Augustine even wrote a book on that.

One of the many problems with “millions of years,” besides that it is not taught in Bible, is that it puts death before sin. If death occurred before sin then death is not a punishment for sin. If that is the case, then the foundation of the gospel, the need for salvation, and the trustworthiness of the entire Bible is thrown into doubt.

The fact that modern science does not allow for a literal reading of Genesis do damages the trustworthiness of the Bible if you are a literalist. If you do not there is no problem. BTW the Bible is not a science book. Just do not use the Bible like it.

After all, if God can’t get the fist 11 chapters right, how can we believe anything else. The ungodly have long recognized this and have focused intense attacks on Gen. 1-11. Unfortunately many Christians have joined them in attacking the reliability of Genesis.

Genesis was not considered fully reliable in the Early Church either. Just do not built your theology around a literal Genesis and you will be OK.

 

[gdavis]

The fact that modern science does not allow for a literal reading of Genesis do damages the trustworthiness of the Bible if you are a literalist. If you do not there is no problem. BTW the Bible is not a science book. Just do not use the Bible like it.

 Modern EVOLUTIONARY science does not allow for a literal reading the Genesis.  Science is always changing, being proven wrong - not too long ago science thought it was impossible for man to go to the moon - and coming up with new theories.  You may choose to put your faith in the shifting sands of science, I will choose the unchanging rock of the Word of God.  One day science will catch up.

Besides, science is a study of things in the present time.  Origins can never be proven scientifically.  The best science can say is "from what we observe in the present we think this is what happened in the past."  There are many scientific observations in the present that would indicate a young earth.  Personally, I will take the Word of God which includes a literal Genesis. :)

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Genesis 1-11 is too similar to Sumerian and Babylonian creation poems not to be coincidential. Also the style and some anachronism reveal that it was written by King David’s time, not by Moses unlike the older part of the Genesis, the Patriarchs history.

That should make sense, since Abraham hailed from Sumer…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

My son has a question:

We were chatting about space tonight at the dinner table, and Genesis. My son asked…“who knew Adam and Eve existed to record what happened?” Does it say in the Bible, who recorded this? He enjoys the Gospel readings, as there are clear cut ‘reporters’ of the story. He is an analytical thinker…much like my husband, he questions things that require shear faith…belief without clearcut facts. My dh and I explained that there are aspects of our faith that are a mystery. My son said that there were dinosaurs, which have been proven by scientists, there were cavemen–proven as well–but there are no ‘historical’ accounts of Adam and Eve. My husband and I continued to explain the Bible, but the conversation ended pretty much the same as it began.

Can any of you help us to explain this better to our son? Thanks!

God, He was there you know!

 

[peso73]

Ok gdave, that’s ok, if you believe whatever you want, but WHAT ABOUT THE DINOS? And the cave men? All fakes I bet, huh? I am sorry man, but you DO NOT have to interpret every part of the bible literally for it to be true. People of your view make non-believers REALLY sure we are nuts. And please tell me you believe that the wine and bread we consume during holy communion are the actual body and blood of Christ…or was that a metaphor? Just curious on your stance on that issue. Hmmm… sorry I am being so sacastic, but it blows my mind, the fundamentalist logic…oh, yeah, I forgot, who did Cain and Adam and Eve’s other kids marry anyway? Each other, right, because they were the only humans on the planet, but that would be incest and expressly forbidden later in the same big book…that God wrote Himself and fell out of the sky, bound and translated in the King James version too…um…and who would Cain have to be afraid of that was gonna kill him after he was sent away that he should recieve the mark to protect him? I guess the lions and tigers and bears that would have recogized the mark and left him in peace for fear of their creators’ wrath…ANYWAYS, I have a theory that I believe can explain the Adam and Eve v. common sense problem, that perhaps the original poster could tell their kid. Here it goes, I think one has to except some evolution as indicated by the findings of science, although I don’t think be evolved from slime either, maybe algae did though…well, I think humans did evolve into how we look now from cavemen, and maybe even from more monkey-lookin’ critters, who knows, but here’s my thought. Adam and Eve were the first 2 people that God “infused” with souls, the first true humans beings that He made. When they sinned, (and we all got burned by the serpent on that deal, huh?) they realized they were naked, etc, although I’ve no idea why that would have bothered them as they were in the garden of Eden, probably a lovely place to be without clothes , we “advanced” humans all had to die and continue to exist in the afterlife of Sheol, or whatever you want to call the realm of the dead before the resurrection, as opposed to just ceasing to exist upon death like a lion, tiger, or bear. Our pre-Adam and Eve ancestors MUST have died, and there must have been a world full of other people at least human enough to mate with (i.e. Cain’s wife, etc…) but there doesn’t seem to be anymore time to write about this 'cos my wife wants to start the movie…you know those decendents of Eve, always getting you to do stuff you don’t wanna

 

[thistle]

**The Church teaches that all the storys up to Abram are fictonal. **They were created by the Jews to represent how sin came into the world, etc. This does not mean that God did not create the world or that we did not come from one set of parents. Hope this helps!

This is nonsense. The Church does not teach that!

 

[epostle]

The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

ADAM, EVE AND EVOLUTION last 2 paragrphs.

 

[gdavis]

…WHAT ABOUT THE DINOS? And the cave men?..oh, yeah, I forgot, who did Cain and Adam and Eve’s other kids marry anyway? Each other, right, because they were the only humans on the planet, but that would be incest and expressly forbidden later in the same big book…that God wrote Himself and fell out of the sky, bound and translated in the King James version too…um…and who would Cain have to be afraid of that was gonna kill him after he was sent away that he should recieve the mark to protect him?..

- Dinos would have been created on day six just like any other land animal, no problem.
- Cave men?  There are still cave men today, i.e. people who live in caves.  Cave men do not prove an old earth or a pre-Adamic race.
-  You seem to make a big thing out of Cain.  No matter where the first humans came from, originally they would have had to marry brother/sister.  In any case, as you pointed out, incest was not forbidden until the time of Moses.  Abraham married a half-sister.  The closer we are to the creation the less genetic damage is in the human body.  Close relatives marrying at that time would have given no threat to the offspring.  By the time of Moses, the genetic damage was enough that it was dangerous to the children and the world population was large enough that it was not necessary.  Today incest has an even greater chance of producing deformities in the children and it will grow even greater as we move further from creation.
- Who would Cain have been afraid of?  Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters.  Obviously by the time Cain murdered Abel there was a sufficent adult population that it was a danger.
- If God was wrong in the creation history then how do we know the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are true?  Or do you simply explain them away, too?
-  You do not seem to have a very high regard for the Word of God.  But perhaps I am misunderstanding...:shrug:

 

[peso73]

• Dinos would have been created on day six just like any other land animal, no problem.
  • Cave men? There are still cave men today, i.e. people who live in caves. Cave men do not prove an old earth or a pre-Adamic race.
  • You seem to make a big thing out of Cain. No matter where the first humans came from, originally they would have had to marry brother/sister. In any case, as you pointed out, incest was not forbidden until the time of Moses. Abraham married a half-sister. The closer we are to the creation the less genetic damage is in the human body. Close relatives marrying at that time would have given no threat to the offspring. By the time of Moses, the genetic damage was enough that it was dangerous to the children and the world population was large enough that it was not necessary. Today incest has an even greater chance of producing deformities in the children and it will grow even greater as we move further from creation.
  • Who would Cain have been afraid of? Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. Obviously by the time Cain murdered Abel there was a sufficent adult population that it was a danger.
  • If God was wrong in the creation history then how do we know the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are true? Or do you simply explain them away, too?
  • You do not seem to have a very high regard for the Word of God. But perhaps I am misunderstanding…

Ok, so you think “modern man” and the dinosaurs were on the planet at the same time? How can you possibly think that? Wouldn’t they have eaten us up really quick? And you know what I mean @ cavemen, the ones like the archeologists find bones of, like us but all funky, like on the TV insurance commercials…Ok, even if for what ever reason we are all literally decended from Adam and Eve, why wouldn’t we all look alike? You really think in 6000 years the black man turned dark, the white man lightened up, the asian’s eyes became as they are, etc? That just seems crazy…and you didn’t answer my ? regarding the bread and wine at communion time, you take that literally to, or not? This is the thing, I DON’T think God was wrong about the beginning of the bible as you suggest, I just think it can be literal history and partially allegorical at the same time and be no less true. I mean, God didn’t write it Himself, the Jewish people had a history, that is their story, and as it was passed down by oral tradition until it was written down, I believe God preserved their story from error as He did the oral Traditions of the church before the writing of the gospels or letters by St. Paul, or anything else in the Bible. As the writers of the many books of the bible were inspired and protected from teaching falsehoods by the Spirit. But STILL, this doesn’t mean the earth had to have been created in 6 actual days! And honestly, It really doesn’t matter, does it, because that was a long time ago, and we are here now, and have to deal with OUR day and age, and OUR souls and those of our fellow man, so everything in the bible has to be true to be any kind of Christian other than some kind of universalist Unitarian or whatever…whether it is literally true or allegory, poetry or history, it must be the truth. Obviously there are some parts of the bible that are more important that others to Christians, for example, John 3:16 would probably be considered a much more important verse than Esther 3:15, would you agree? To me, the fact that every apostle except John was killed rather that deny the reality they witnessed, the resurrection of the Lord, is pretty good arguement for the truth of the resurrection, and if God is God, He can do anything, a virgin birth is like us blinking, so also would be creating the earth in 6 days, I just think regarding Genesis understanding it to be a combination of literal and allegorical truth makes it no less the truth.

 

[gdavis]

Ok, so you think “modern man” and the dinosaurs were on the planet at the same time? How can you possibly think that? Wouldn’t they have eaten us up really quick? And you know what I mean @ cavemen, the ones like the archeologists find bones of, like us but all funky, like on the TV insurance commercials.

Short answer on dinosaurs: Yes, since the Fall there have been many dangerous beasts on the earth but humans seemed to have survived. There is no reason why the caveman bones they dig up have to be older than 6,000 years.

 

[gdavis]

Ok, even if for what ever reason we are all literally decended from Adam and Eve, why wouldn’t we all look alike? You really think in 6000 years the black man turned dark, the white man lightened up, the asian’s eyes became as they are, etc? That just seems crazy…and you didn’t answer my ? regarding the bread and wine at communion time, you take that literally to, or not? This is the thing, I DON’T think God was wrong about the beginning of the bible as you suggest, I just think it can be literal history and partially allegorical at the same time and be no less true. …But STILL, this doesn’t mean the earth had to have been created in 6 actual days! And honestly, It really doesn’t matter, does it, because that was a long time ago, and we are here now, and have to deal with OUR day and age, and OUR souls and those of our fellow man, so everything in the bible has to be true to be any kind of Christian other than some kind of universalist Unitarian or whatever…

Actually the physical differences between human beings are less than 2%. We are 98+% the same and it does not take a long time to get the differences that there are.

The fact that an historical event has spiritual truth behind it does not mean it did not happen as recorded.

I didn’t answer your question because I did not see how it related to this discussion. If you must know, I view communion as a blood covenant meal but that does not require a physical change in the bread and wine.

As far as the 6,000 years not mattering, you haven’t addressed the fact that the millions of years idea contradicts the Bible’s statements that death came after sin - not before it. If you have death before sin you do away the reason Christ died. That IS important in every age.

And what you believe about the past will affect how you live in the present and what you hope for in the future. How much violence to we have today because people have been taught that they are just the result of mindless evolution instead of being taught they were created in the image of God with great value?